First, I need all of the Teddy Roosevelt haters to stay with me for a minute. T.R. is often looked at in both admiration and disdain by many modern Republicans. This is of course understandable when one recalls that , while a hugely popular leader, T.R. did famously usher in the progressive era in America. I have written before why I think the early 20th century’s forays into Progressivism were wrong, though to be fair , The United States did not go nearly as wrong as our European friends did. But rehashing the history of the progressive movement is not the point of this post. At the core of the issue T.R. saw a wrong and sought to set it right. He saw unbridled capitalism creating dictatorial monopolies that were abusing their power. He felt the way to set this right was to set the government up as a watchdog- and hence the era of regulation was born.
One needs to remember though that Roosevelt was very much a man of his time, and in the early 20th century most educated people felt that the state could be the arbiter of righteousness at least to some degree. I recently listened to a talk by Joshua David Hawley, author of Theodore Roosevelt Preacher of Righteousness, and I came away with the feeling that more than ever we need a person of this caliber to reinvigorate the GOP for the new century.
From his birth in 1858 to his death in 1919 the United States was engaged in an accelerated process of maturation. Settling its vast interior, welcoming hordes of new immigrants and rapidly urbanizing; the country was preparing for a 20th century role as a world power. Theodore Roosevelt’s own maturation paralleled his country’s. He raised his commitment to a muscular Christianity and belief in righteousness to the level of a political philosophy. Eventually, his vision of the state as moral arbiter for the people became the theme of his progressivism.
With some minor alterations that paragraph could be talking about our current place in history; we too stand on the precipice of a new age with new problems to face. T.R.’s response to a vastly changing landscape was government as benevolent ruler. Government which could raise men to a higher and more virtuous standard. With the benefit of history we can see that this in fact did not work. We now have a class of bureaucrats, answerable to no one controlling vast amounts of capital and resources. But that does mean T.R. failed.
Civilization, society, self governance are all vast experiments in trial and error. The only real failure is standing still while the world moves on. We need a character of T.R.’s strength, energy and commitment to battle big government much they way T.R. battled big business. Modern Republicans should not run away from Teddy Roosevelt, they should look at him as a hero of his age, who tried with the best tools and ideas at his disposal to right a wrong.
As we look at the 2012 potentials we should ask ourselves who has the energy, drive and ideas to push the GOP forward. Who will make big, hard decisions about our debt, military, border and overall culture.
No, not that one… Buddy Roemer, the former Governor of Louisiana from 1988-1992, is considering throwing his hat in the ring:
Despite Bobby Jindal swearing off it, there could still be a Louisiana governor running for president in 2012. Buddy Roemer says he’s thinking about it.
“It certainly interests me. There is a lot of work to be done,” the former governor and bank president told LaPolitics. “I am making no announcement. I am not running today,” he said. “It will take months to work out if it happens. I don’t want to scare anyone.”
Roemer was elected as a Democrat in 1987, then switched his party affiliation to Republican in 1991. He was subsequently defeated in his re-election campaign in 1991 and lost another comeback bid in 1995.
All of this leads me to make this announcement: I am not thinking about running for President in 2012. (Since it seems everyone else is, I just wanted to clarify where I was at.)
Seriously, this could be the most populated primary in GOP history… 2008 featured 11 candidates; 2000 had 12; 1996 had 9; 1988 and 1980 had even fewer than that. With the field shaping up for 2012, we could be looking at easily a dozen and a half candidates or more.
“I’m Going to Iowa – There’s Your Answer” says the Congresswoman to ABC News:
Asked on ABC’s “Top Line” today about whether –- as ABC’s John Parkinson first reported this week –- she’s thinking about running for president, Bachmann immediately pointed to her upcoming travel to Iowa, and said she wants to be “part of the conversation” over the next year, as the GOP presidential nomination fight takes shape.
“I am going to Iowa — there’s your answer. I am going to Iowa,” said Bachmann, R-Minn., the founder of the congressional Tea Party Caucus on Capitol Hill.
Responding, “I’m Going to Iowa – There’s Your Answer” when asked if you’re running for President is as good of an affirmative non-answer as you can get.
The implications for the other Mama Grizzly in the race are, as of yet, unknown.
Real estate mogul Donald Trump has reportedly told friends he will run for the Republican nomination for President in 2012, following the upcoming season of The Apprentice. This is either Trump finally taking the political plunge he’s flirted with in the past or an elaborate attempt at a ratings grab, Palin style.
Trump is an interesting potential candidate, possessing the same extensive business experience that propelled the candidacies of Steve Forbes and Mitt Romney. Trump’s media savvy and limitless financial resources would make him a player in such a wide open field. Plus it might be worth it just to hear him say to Obama’s face “you’re fired”.
PPP Nevada 2012 Presidential Survey Poll
- Barack Obama 47%
- Mitt Romney 46%
- Barack Obama 51%
- Mike Huckabee 41%
- Barack Obama 51%
- Newt Gingrich 40%
- Barack Obama 52%
- Sarah Palin 39%
Survey of 932 Nevada voters was conducted January 3-5, 2011. The margin of error is +/- 3.2 percentage points.
A majority of the 168 RNC members (88 of them) have now publicly endorsed a candidate in the Chairman/woman race. Hotline has the updated counts, and I’ve included in parentheses the gains for each candidate over the past week:
1. Priebus – 34 (+4)
2. Steele – 17 (+2)
3. Wagner – 14 (+2)
4. Anuzis – 14 (+4)
5. Cino – 9 (+3)
Despite 15 new endorsements over the past week, no one candidate seems to be enjoying overwhelming momentum in this race. The most interesting information at this point would be who the RNC members’ second choice is, and what kind of alliances are forming that will become vitally important after the first ballot.
Just as a point of reference, the final public endorsement tally for the race in 2009 was:
Duncan – 36
Dawson – 19
Steele – 18
Anuzis – 17
Blackwell – 16
Magellan Strategies (R) 2012 New Hampshire GOP Primary
- Mitt Romney 39% (40%)
- Sarah Palin 16% (11%)
- Mike Huckabee 10% (10%)
- Newt Gingrich 8% (16%)
- Ron Paul 7% (6%)
- Tim Pawlenty 4% (5%)
- Rick Santorum 3% (2%)
- Haley Barbour 1%
- Other 4% (5%)
- Undecided 8% (6%)
Survey of 1,451 likely Republican primary voters was conducted January 4, 2011. The margin of error is +/- 2.57 percentage points. Party ID breakdown: 67% (66%) Republican; 33% (34%) Independent. Political ideology: Conservative 81% (68%); Moderate 15% (26%); Liberal 1% (6%).
In their mutli-part series entitled “A Gay White House,” Big Think has included interviews with openly gay, GOP presidential primary candidate Fred Karger. Here are some quotes from Karger from the interview:
“I am trying to bring the Republican Party back to its roots of Lincoln and Roosevelt…The government should stay out of our lives, and that’s a Republican philosophy.”
“There is a Vanity Fair/CBS poll that showed over 50% of the public supports the concept of an openly gay president…We’ve certainly, you know, emerged as a political force in this country. You’re seeing a lot of attention to the issues; we’ve just passed the ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ repeal. And so I think the timing is absolutely perfect.”
“Religion is the culprit here in teaching people that this is wrong. It’s not. It’s the way we’re born, it’s a huge part of our being, and to be able to live openly and honestly is great…I want to be that person who could light a fire under this younger demographic.”
Check out the videos at Big Think for more of Karger’s thoughts on the potential for a gay president. According to Karger, Iowa Christian Alliance President Steve Scheffler is ready to mobilize against his candidacy, so it’ll be interesting to see what if any traction he is able to generate in the traditionally more socially conservative Iowa caucus.
_______________________________________________________
On January 9, the nation of Sudan will experience a historic change, the effects of which are likely to ripple throughout the region and the world, possibly even affecting the US 2012 presidential campaign in subtle but profound ways. The cause of these changes is the referendum, scheduled for that day, which will determine the future status of South Sudan, and its relationship to the north. Though no reasonably democratic election is ever really a foregone conclusion, there seems very little doubt that the south will vote for secession, ending a civil war which has lasted fifty years, claimed millions of lives, and played a significant, if often overlooked, role in US foreign policy for at least the last decade.
The current state of play in Sudan, briefly, is as follows. The south is almost certainly going to vote to secede, and do so in overwhelming numbers. This will then force the north to make a choice between recognizing the results of the referendum and contesting them, and what they will do is basically anyone’s guess. Assuming they recognize southern secession, and do so with a minimal amount of violence, there will still be issues of border negotiation, debt-sharing and revenue division to work out. Though south Sudan has most of the oil, the country’s massive debt was used to build infrastructure in the north. Thus, under normal circumstances, the lion’s share of the burden would fall on the north, which will be deprived, at the same time, of its most important resource. On the other hand, the south, partially due to the horrific policies of the north during the war and a general neglect in the interludes of peace, is woefully under-developed in terms of infrastructure, and somewhat fragile due to tribal divisions. Thus, if the referendum and post-referendum process is not managed carefully, the world could face crises in two new failed states in the heart of Africa, which could bring in Sudan’s neighbors, destabilize the region, and, perhaps, lead to an upsurge in radical Islamist violence.
To understand the importance of the Sudanese civil war for 2012 contenders, it is first important to grasp the way in which the conflict is perceived in the United States. By and large, most figures active on the north-south Sudan issue within the US see the conflict as somewhat ethnic (Arab north versus black south) but primarily religious (Muslim north versus Christian south). There are many who have argued that this ethno-religious understanding is incorrect, and that other factors such as economics and core periphery issues are equally responsible for the conflict. While I think a combination of ethno-religious and ideological identity is the best explanation for Sudan’s troubles, the root causes are less important from the perspective of analyzing US political implications of the referendum, than the perception of the conflict here. This perception, of an Arab Muslim north oppressing a black, Christian south, has led to one of the odder foreign policy alliances in recent domestic US history, between Evangelical Christians and the Congressional Black Caucus.
For our purposes, however, the relevant group is the religious right, or more particularly, a subset within that less than monolithic community composed of conservative Catholics and mainline Christians, and some of the newer breed of Evangelical political figures, such as Chuck Colson. The most notable trend among this subset of the religious right has been away from a strict focus on Israel, and a branching out into more human-rights-oriented foreign policy issues, particularly those pertaining to the fate of persecuted Christians around the world. Though this trend will be flushed out in greater detail in a separate post, suffice it to say, for now, that Sudan, with its intra-religious strife in which the north can be generally agreed to be the aggressor (notwithstanding the fact that southern forces have committed their own atrocities at times), is one of the most important issues to this segment of the religious right. It is also important to note that the number of politically engaged Christians interested in issues like Sudan is growing, and will only continue to do so as evangelicals engage more with Africa.
To be sure, Sudan in and of itself is unlikely to be a game-changer in the Republican nomination. However, it is a way for candidates coming from a more socially conservative background, such as Mike Huckabee, John Thune, Rick Santorum or, potentially, Sarah Palin, to burnish their foreign policy credentials with a key subgroup of their base. Santorum in particular, given his foreign policy work at the socially conservative ethics and public policy center, is well positioned to jump on this issue much as Sam Brownback did in 2008. On the other hand, candidates less traditionally associated with religious conservatives (such as Mitt Romney or Mitch Daniels) might see it as a way of reassuring evangelicals that they deeply understand and sympathize with their concerns.
What would the effect of Republican presidential candidates speaking out on the referendum be internationally, and what are they likely to say? As to the first, I would have to say there will probably not be much effect at all. There is a possibility that too much strident anti-northern rhetoric from Republican politicians might make the north, which is already suspicious of US intentions, even more so. It’s often difficult for leaders of more repressive regimes to understand that democracies don’t throw opposition leaders in jail when they say inconvenient things, and so the north may take Republican statements as indicative of President Obama’s strategy. However, I think the chances of this are fairly small; the north is already suspicious of the US, and will judge our intentions based on what we do, not what we say. The best course, for the US, would be trading normalization and economic assistance for northern concessions, and a firm security guarantee, and development assistance, for southern ones. This appears to be close to the policy Obama will follow. As to what Republican candidates could and should say, this depends on the outcome of the referendum. I expect Republicans to take a hard line on any northern attempt to tamper with, or failure to recognize, the results of the referendum, and they should. More complicated, though eminently more preferable, would be reacting to a northern acquiescence. If this happens, Republicans will face the same difficulties as President Obama: how much should the north be rewarded for its good behavior, and how much should be withheld in order to coax Khartoum into improving its actions in Darfur?
Thus, Sudan is, in one sense, an opportunity for Republican candidates to demonstrate their familiarity with an issue of great importance to a key part of the party’s base. Yet on the other hand, it demonstrates vividly the complex challenges with which any candidate seeking to be commander-in-chief must be ready to cope on day 1. It is one thing to say that the south deserves self-determination and independence if they desire it; this is clearly the case. It is quite another thing to make this desire into a concrete, stable and lasting reality. And given America’s pivotal role on the global stage, part of the responsibility for creating this reality will lie with the forty-fifth president of the United States, whoever he or she may be.
The New York Post is reporting this morning that Giuliani is considering a second attempt at the Presidency in 2012. He’s been contacting his advisors to discuss the feasibility of a 2012 bid as he feels his chances are pretty good, according to Post sources who said, “[Giuliani] thinks the Republican race will be populated with far-right candidates like Mitt Romney, Sarah Palin and Mike Huckabee, and there’s opportunity for a moderate candidate with a background in national security.” He has plans to visit New Hampshire next month.
_______________________________________________________
I have been recently ruminating about whether or not our political leaders possess the classical virtues and whether or not that should concern us.
I have been rereading C.S. Lewis’ Mere Christianity
When people say in the newspapers that we are striving for Christian moral standards, they usually mean that we are striving for kindness and fair play between nations, and classes, and individuals; that is, they are thinking only of the first thing. When a man says about something he wants to do, “It can’t be wrong because it doesn’t do anyone else any harm,” he is thinking only of the first thing. He is thinking it does not matter what his ship is like inside provided that he does not run into the next ship. And it is quite natural, when we start thinking about morality, to begin with the first thing, with social relations. For one thing, the results of bad morality in that sphere are so obvious and press on us every day: war and poverty and graft and lies and shoddy work. And also, as long as you stick to the first thing, there is very little disagreement about morality. Almost all people at all times have agreed (in theory) that human beings ought to be honest and kind and helpful to one another. But though it is natural to begin with all that, if our thinking about morality stops there, we might just as well not have thought at all. Unless we go on to the second thing-the tidying up inside each human being-we are only deceiving ourselves.
What is the good of telling the ships how to steer so as to avoid collisions if, in fact, they are such crazy old tubs that they cannot be steered at all? What is the good of drawing up, on paper, rules for social behaviour, if we know that, in fact, our greed, cowardice, ill temper, and self-conceit are going to prevent us from keeping them? I do not mean for a moment that we ought not to think, and think hard, about improvements in our social and economic system. What I do mean is that all that thinking will be mere moonshine unless we realise that nothing but the courage and unselfishness of individuals is ever going to make any system work properly. It is easy enough to remove the particular kinds of graft or bullying that go on under the present system: but as long as men are twisters or bullies they will find some new way of carrying on the old game under the new system. You cannot make men good by law: and without good men you cannot have a good society. That is why we must go on to think of the second thing: of morality inside the individual.
I am in agreement with C.S. Lewis on this point. Unless we fix ourselves we really can not fix society. I am not suggesting that we stand by and let the country go to hell while we work on some sort of new age self improvement. What I am suggesting is that we hold our leaders to a higher standard. We need men and women who are serious, and who conduct themselves is a manner that is in accordance with some basic virtues. Otherwise we will just end up with more of the same. As we begin to look seriously at the potentials for the 2012 Republican nomination I think we should keep this in mind.
While her fledgling presidential run is being greeted by snickering and catcalls from the peanut gallery on both sides of the political spectrum, I believe that it is a huge mistake to “misunderestimate” the congresswoman from Minnesota. Given the tenor of the current political environment, and given the personal and political strengths that Rep. Bachmann brings to the table, it seems to me that Ms. Bachmann may be walking into a nomination contest that was tailor made for a candidate like herself.
I spent some time last night listening to clips of Rep. Bachmann addressing the issues, responding to interviewers’ questions, and just generally engaging in political schtick. What I found was that Bachmann, like Palin, is essentially a right-wing populist. That is to say, she generally frames the issues in a way that pits the people against the powerful, with the powerful being the state, or a threat from abroad, etc. This sort of populism has been in vogue for at least a couple of years now, and it has taken on a decidedly right-wing form due to the decisions of the Obama Administration and the Democratic government to bail out, entrench, and empower large interests, such as banks, auto manufacturers, and the government itself, at the expense of the folks on the ground. It was right-wing populism that fueled the Tea Party movement, and if any insurgent candidate takes the GOP nomination by storm via a grassroots movement, that candidate is almost certainly going to be a populist.
But what was especially interesting about Bachmann was that not only did she match Palin in populism, but she was able to communicate her ideas in a much more effective, articulate manner, with a delivery that exuded intelligence and knowledge, as opposed to Palin’s usual monologues, which generally reinforce the whole “unqualified for high office” meme. If Palin is a leggy conservative populist, Bachmann is a smart leggy conservative populist.
I kid Gov. Palin and Rep. Bachmann with my commentary on their sex appeal, but that brings me to yet another reason that no one should count Ms. Bachmann out just yet. The reality is that a lot of conservative base voters had their hearts set on nominating a woman for president this time around, only most were assuming that Palin would be that female candidate. There is a certain segment of Palinistas who really want to see the conservative message delivered via a female candidate, and who want to see the requisite explosion of heads on the Left when a female GOP presidential nominee makes the case for the pro-life movement. If Palin doesn’t run, these folks aren’t going to be nearly as excited about voting for, say, Tim Pawlenty. But another fiery right-wing populist without a Y chromosome would re-energize these Palin hopefuls.
Of course, all of this assumes that Sarah Palin won’t run for the nomination, something that no one can predict with any certainty at this point in the process. And it also assumes that certain other GOP superstars and potential right-wing dark horses take a knee on the race. A Bachmann run will end up being an asterisk if she has to share the stage with Palin, Pence, DeMint, Jeb, Christie, and Christine O’Donnell, tanned, rested, and ready. But in a race where few candidates are present who excite grassroots conservatives, and where the GOP’s A-team of candidates stays out of the race, Bachmann steps into a huge vacuum, one that she could potentially fill.
The scenario that leads to a Bachmann nomination goes something like this. Sarah Palin decides to remain in private life, Jeb either runs for Senate or hangs back until 2016, Pence runs for Indiana governor, Christie stays in New Jersey, and DeMint remains in the Senate. In that event, Bachmann could easily fill the role of Tea Party candidate, a huge niche given the current political climate, and a role for which her only adversary would be Herman Cain, who couldn’t even win a GOP Senate primary in Georgia. Contrast Cain’s political prowess with that of Bachmann, who won a congressional seat in Blue Minnesota, besting Democratic opponents in both 2006 and 2008, elections that sent scores of Republicans to the political graveyard.
Bachmann’s path to the nomination becomes even clearer if Mike Huckabee decides to stick with his new home in Florida instead of attempting to move into the White House. That’s because Rep. Bachmann is not just an ideal fit for the Tea Partiers, but also for the evangelicals that rule the Iowa caucus and that comprise a huge portion of GOP voters nationwide. Bachmann is an uber-social conservative with a JD from Oral Roberts University. She would eat Mitt Romney alive in Iowa in a race without Mike Huckabee and Sarah Palin.
In fact, it wouldn’t be difficult to see a Bachmann/Romney race taking on a Miller/Murkowski tone, with the Tea Party favorite on one side and the affluent establishment candidate on the other. I’m not sure Romney could win that sort of race, even with the myriad of arguments about electability that he will ultimately rely on in order to attempt to convince the Regular Republicans to ensure his nomination. Of course, no one really knows how electable Ms. Bachmann would be against the president. A lot of it depends on the sort of general election campaign she would run. A lot of it depends on whether the president’s approval rating is 39 percent or 49 percent in October of 2012.
I’m certainly not predicting a Bachmann nomination. But given that Rep. Bachmann is an articulate, attractive Republican congresswoman who clearly knows how to persuade a hostile electorate to see things her way, and who is beloved by both Tea Partiers and evangelicals, writing her off as just another single-digit candidate seems a tad premature.
Scott Conroy over at RCP Blog has the story:
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich’s advocacy group American Solutions on Thursday launched a website to support congressional Republicans’ fight to defund and repeal the health care reform law.
In an email to supporters, Gingrich described the new site, NoMoreObamaCare.com, as an “action center” for citizens who want to get involved in promoting efforts to repeal President Obama’s signature domestic achievement.
The newly empowered Republican House intends to make health care repeal a focal point of its legislative agenda beginning with a vote for full repeal scheduled for next week. The repeal effort that is widely expected to die in the Senate.
“Repealing ObamaCare is going to be a long and challenging fight, but if the millions of people receiving this email all get involved, there is no doubt we will succeed,” Gingrich wrote in the email to supporters.
The website contains a petition for repeal and a map that includes information on how users can get involved in the effort locally. The site also urges readers to contact their representatives in Congress and to write letters to the editor in favor of repeal.
Read the whole story here. Visit the site, NoMoreObamacare.com, here.
Although I like Dan quite a bit, I am filing this report under “Rumor Mill” because: a.) there is usually quite a bit of smoke that begins to swirl around the interwebs the closer we get to the actual voting in the RNC Chair race; b.) I don’t think that Haley Barbour is actually going to run for President, and; c.) he would not be so transparent as to have his nephew become the first high profile endorsement of his preferred stalking horse if he was. That being said, here is report:
Based upon talking to multiple sources over a period of weeks, I’ve been able to confirm that a deal struck between the Barbours, Henry and Haley, and Reince Priebus, is set to put Nick Ayers in at the RNC as political director to pave the way for Barbour’s 2012 Presidential bid.
Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour is trying to get his southern claws around the RNC as one of his cronies, Nick Ayers, the 28 year old Republican Governors Association Director, is being pumped up to challenge an already embattled Michael Steele. Incoming Republican Governor Association Chairman, Texas Gov. Rick Perry, who previously said he is not running for President, already chimed in to endorse the young Ayers.
Weeks ago, knowledgeable RNC sources described Priebus to me as a glad-handing lightweight. That’s when I began to question his competence for the slot. That led to some push back from other sources open to Priebus heading up the RNC.
In response to my saying I had solid inside sources telling me Priebus didn’t really have the chops for the job, I was told it shouldn’t impact my opinion. “So what if he’s a lightweight, he’s going to be Haley’s lightweight,” said one source. I filed the remark away and later another source claimed that Priebus was recruited by the Barbours as an acceptable face for their plans, given some resistance within the GOP to the Barbours taking over control of the RNC.
Henry Barbour, the nephew of Gov. Haley Barbour and a committeeman from Mississippi, has approached Reince Priebus, who served as the chairman of Steele’s first run for chairman in 2009, about the possibility of challenging the incumbent early next year.
Now, a reliable source linked to an establishment candidate in the race for chair has informed me that it’s been absolutely confirmed, the deal is done. The young Nick Ayers, 27, and fresh out of the RGA and very much Haley Barbour’s guy, will be appointed Political Director at the RNC in exchange for the Barbour’s supporting Reince Priebus for chair.
Young Nick Ayers has full-grown plans for a Republican return to the White House
That would also comport with the image of Priebus during Steele’s tenure some RNC insiders have portrayed, a yes man for and staunch defender of Steele, regardless of how wise, or prudent, some of Steele’s decisions may have been in the eyes of others.
Be sure to read the rest over at Riehl World View.
Like I said earlier, I like Dan Riehl quite a bit. He is a stand-up guy and he works tirelessly to protect the conservatives values which have made this country great every single day. However, I think he may be jumping to conclusions on the Ayers appointment as RNC Political Director. Ayers is one of the most talented and successful up-and-comers we have on this side of the aisle. His elevation to this position is more likely the product of the tremendous amount of success he enjoyed at the RGA and not a corrupt bargain between Priebus and Barbour.
As your resident lesser known candidate tracker, here’s some recent news on the Herman Cain front.
Herman Cain has hired Mark Block as his exploratory committee’s manager. Block was the State Director for Americans for Prosperity in Wisconsin. Cain recently took a trip Wisconsin to visit with voters and meet with Block. When asked what could potentially prevent him from making a formal announcement for President, Cain said, “Death.” Local news reported on the Cain visit:
He said he would campaign on providing a one-year payroll tax holiday for workers and employers, which he said would total about the same size as the $787 billion federal economic stimulus. He called the stimulus approved last year “wasteful,” but said his plan would be effective because the money would move entirely through the private sector.
Cain, an Atlanta radio host and past chairman and CEO of Godfather’s Pizza, advocated freezing federal spending and eventually cutting government “horizontally and vertically.”
He said he has broad support among long-time Republicans and the tea party movement.
“Nobody’s going to win with just tea party support or traditional conservative support,” he said in a brief interview. “You’ve got to have both.”
CPAC organizers also recently announced that Cain will be a speaker at the event on Friday, February 11, 2011. CPAC Director Lisa De Pasquale said, “Last year Mr. Cain was one of our most popular speakers. His success in the business world and in the conservative movement makes him an enthusiastic and inspiring leader. CPAC attendees won’t want to miss his speech this year.”
Cain is beginning to build up a support base and as one of the few candidates with an exploratory committee, expect him to come to CPAC well organized.
_______________________________________________________
I just got the following email from a co-worker:
An unusual juxtaposition of events will take place in 2011: both
Groundhog Day and the State of the Union address will occur on the same
day.Personally, I find it ironic. One involves a meaningless ritual in which
we look to an insignificant creature of little intelligence for
prognostication. The other involves a groundhog.
Aside from foreign policy, I would have to say my primary interest for 2012 would have to be the down-ballot governor, house and senate races. So, amidst all the 2012 presidential chatter, I may sometimes do posts like this one looking at developments which assess the changing state of play in some of these races.
At first glance, the news–reported by David Catanese over at politico–that NJ GOP chairman J Webber has just stepped down may not look like it relates to any of these down-ballot races. Catanese hints that the move may have come as a result of Webber’s less than stellar fund-raising at the helm of the state party, or out of a desire to replace him with someone from a swingier part of the state, in this case, Burgin countier Sam Raia. However, another possibility is that Webber is stepping down early preparatory to an early announcement of a 2012 senate run. This is not to say that speculation about fund-raising or the desire to have a chair from a swing part of the state is incorrect–that may be part of it. But, even if you account for these factors, Webber was regarded as a rising star, and his decision, in that light, doesn’t make perfect sense.
However, there are some good reasons for Webber to jump on a senate run early, if he’s thinking about one. The first is state Senator and 2006 nominee Tom Kean Junior. Rumor has it Kean is thinking about a rematch, and he would be a formidable–and possibly field-clearing–candidate in a primary. If Webber does want to have a go at Bob Menendez, it might make some sense to try and follow Sarah Steelman’s example and jump in early, to try and preempt Kean. Another reason for Webber to get in early is the 2011 legislative election. NJ GOPers seem intent on making a serious play for the state house this go-round, and Webber might be concerned that a party chair mulling a senate run wouldn’t be able to give this effort his full attention. Finally, there’s the issue of impartiality. Quite frankly, if there is going to be primary competition, it would not look good for Webber to launch an exploratory committee for senate while he was still party chairman.
Thus, while there may be some internal dissatisfaction with Webber within the NJGOP, my gut instinct is that a guy rated one of the top forty rising stars in politics (at least according to some metrics) doesn’t jump ship in the middle of his term unless he has other plans for the very near future. And those plans might well include a senate run.
Of course, there’s another possible explanation: Chris Christie. Christie already engineered the election of his close confidant Bill Palatucci to replace long-time NJ committeeman David Norcross in 2012. Though Palatucci denied the move was an attempt by Christie to gain control of the party, it is inescapable that, within the past six months, Christie has hand-picked two of the three top Republicans in the New Jersey party apparatus. I don’t know that this means Christie is planning to run in 2012, but it does seem clear that he intends to have a lock on the New Jersey GOP moving into the future. It’s also not impossible that this move signals both Christie increasing his own power and a Webber senate run at the same time.
If Webber does run for senate, he is probably the only conservative–aside from Christie–who could make a real race of it. Webber has often been described as young and wicked smart, a good combination in a senate candidate. And if Republicans can play offense in New Jersey down-ballot during a presidential year, that can only help not only the eventual nominee for President, but Republican candidates across the country.
Sources tell Real Clear Politic’s Erin McPike that Daniels is “about 75% of the way in” for 2012:
In Washington D.C. on Wednesday to collect a new award for fiscal responsibility, Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels made the rounds as he ponders a presidential bid.
Republican sources in Indiana say Daniels is about 75 percent of the way in for a presidential run. The last 25 percent of his decision will come during the next four months of the Indiana legislative session, when he will try to pass education reform and a budget.
It the meantime, however, Politico reported this morning that Daniels has accepted an in invitation to speak at the Conservative Political Action Conference on February 11 – yet another sign he’s thinking very seriously about a bid for the White House in 2012.
Be sure to read the whole piece here.
Public Policy Polling 2012 Pennsylvania Poll
If the candidates for President next year were Democrat Barack Obama and Republican…, who would you vote for?
- Barack Obama 47%
- Mike Huckabee 44%
- Barack Obama 46%
- Mitt Romney 42%
- Barack Obama 48%
- Rick Santorum 40%
- Barack Obama 50%
- Newt Gingrich 40%
- Barack Obama 51%
- Sarah Palin 36%
PPP surveyed 547 Pennsylvania voters from January 3rd to 5th. The survey’s margin of error is +/-4.2%. Other factors, such as refusal to be interviewed and weighting, may introduce additional error that is more difficult to quantify.
Romney is the top choice among “insiders” once again, while Mitch Daniels has shot up 12 points since the last survey and moved into second place:
Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney continues to hold the pole position for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination in the latest National Journal Political Insiders Poll. But the surprise runner-up to Romney was the two-term Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels, who moved up from fifth place when the last ranking of the potential GOP White House contenders was conducted a year ago.
Romney’s assets and liabilities are well known and haven’t changed much since last January. He has a national network of political and financial supporters left over from his unsuccessful run for the 2008 Republican nomination, a command of economic issues derived from his days in the private sector as a corporate turnaround artist, and the hard-won experience from have run for the presidency before.
Daniels has taken few obvious steps to lay the foundation for a prospective 2012 candidacy in the last year, but Republican Insiders nonetheless have gravitated to him as the lead alternative to Romney. Daniels is seen as having a solid conservative record as governor, particularly in controlling state spending. Yet there’s still doubt about how effective a candidate he’d be. Daniels “has the credentials; needs to work on his charisma,” said one Republican Insider.
Read the whole piece here.
With CPAC, the Conservative Political Action Conference, just a few weeks away, I thought it would be prudent to update everyone on confirmed speakers for the event, as well as speakers who have not yet accepted an invitation, as they pertain to potential candidates. I don’t know how much we can infer from the CPAC roster, but it is the pre-primary conference so anyone serious about a run should be there.
Confirmed:
The title of this post might seem absurd on its face. After all, politically Sarah Palin and Nelson Rockefeller have absolutely nothing in common. One is an uber-rich liberal New York scion of America’s wealthiest family, the other the Tea Party Queen/Mamma Grizzly from Alaska. Surely there can’t be anything that the two have in common. Can they?
Well, I was recently reading David Pietrusza’s very good book: 1960–LBJ vs. JFK vs. Nixon: The Epic Campaign That Forged Three Presidencies. In it, Pietrusza talks about the “race” for the Republican nomination in 1960. I put race in quotes because there really wasn’t one. Richard Nixon was, for all intents and purposes, the defacto GOP nominee. There was only one person who considered running against Nixon, and that was Rockefeller. However, Rocky couldn’t win; his poll numbers were simply abysmal. He couldn’t win and he knew he couldn’t win. But, that only meant that Rockefeller didn’t challenge Nixon for the nomination. Rocky did, however, make Nixon’s life miserable. He tweaked the Vice President, refusing to let Nixon have any easy ride, and forced Nixon to make concessions in dealing with the Republican Platform. In short, Rocky didn’t run, but he sure was a big factor.
That brings us to Sarah Palin. Much like Rocky, her polling, frankly, isn’t all that good. Also like Rockefeller, Palin is a strong media presence who can make headlines any day. Rockefeller had his millions of dollars, and Palin has social media that connects her in ways that folks in Rocky’s days could never have imagined. Rockefeller was a force in 1960, Palin is one now.
If Palin doesn’t run for President, she certainly won’t be a quiet observer on the sidelines. If Palin is not running for President, I fully expect her to, like Nelson Rockefeller, throw bombs into the arena that the contenders running have to deal with. She would drive the discussion, shape the debate all while not running for President. In that way, she could become even more powerful than she would as a candidate herself.
As the orchestra begins tuning up and the audience starts filing in from the lobby, the curtain is about to rise on the opening of the 2012 presidential race. Act One will focus on the Republican Party and who they will select as their nominee, to challenge President Obama in is re-election efforts.
The first state to hold any binding vote for delegates has, since 1972, has been the great state of Iowa. The Iowa Caucus has been deemed important to candidates, due to the media and voter attention the winner usually derives. As noted in Wikipedia:
“The Iowa caucuses are noteworthy for the amount of media attention they receive during U.S. presidential election years. Since 1972, the Iowa caucuses have been the first major electoral event of the nominating process for President of the United States. Although only about one percent of the nation’s delegates are chosen by the Iowa State Convention, the Iowa caucuses have served as an early indication of which candidates for president might win the nomination of their political party at that party’s national convention.”
But is this contention accurate?
For the Republican Party, who adopted the caucus format in 1976, there have been 9 such events through the 2008 campaign. Of those nine, three were uncontested races, as the incumbent Presidents, Bush II, Bush I & Reagan, ran unopposed. The remaining six contested events saw the winner go on to win their party’s nomination only 33% of the time. If you discount Reagan’s challenge to sitting President Ford in 1976 and look at the five open contests, the winning percentage inches up to 40%. Not very rewarding odds or results, considering the attention, time and money, candidates need to invest there.
By contrast, the New Hampshire Primary has had quite a different effect on GOP Presidential nomination campaigns. Many political historians and prognosticators see NH as having a greater impact, due to its timing and increased media attention. It has had the ability to make, break or resurrect campaigns (again, from Wikipedia):
Controlling for other factors statistically, a win in New Hampshire increases a candidate’s share of the final primary count in all states by 27 percentage points.
Before the Iowa caucus first received national attention in the 1970s (Republicans began caucusing in Iowa in 1976), the New Hampshire primary was the first binding indication of which presidential candidate would receive the party nomination. In defense of their primary, voters of New Hampshire have tended to downplay the importance of the Iowa caucus. “The people of Iowa pick corn, the people of New Hampshire pick presidents,” said then-Governor John H. Sununu in 1988.
Since then, the primary has been considered an early measurement of the national attitude toward the candidates for nomination. Unlike a caucus, the primary measures the number of votes each candidate received directly, rather than through precinct delegates. The popular vote gives lesser-known candidates a chance to demonstrate their appeal to the electorate at large.”
So how does a New Hampshire victory compare to Iowa in terms of boosting a GOP candidate’s chances of going forward to win the nomination?
There have been fifteen NH primaries from 1952 through 2008. During those years, five races were uncontested or viable, due to incumbency. Two other races saw challengers to a sitting President – Gerald Ford in 1976 and George H. W. Bush in 1992, both of who were victorious in the primary and being re-nominated. Of the remaining eight open New Hampshire primaries, the winner eventually advanced to nomination victory on six occasions or 75% of the time.
Something to keep in mind as the plot develops in the upcoming political drama.
ABC News is reporting this morning that Representative Michele Bachmann (R-MN) is considering a Presidential bid in 2012. She’s going to be meeting with activists in Iowa soon and will be headlining some fundraisers as well. Here’s an excerpt from the article:
ABC News has learned that Bachmann, R-Minn., also is seriously weighing whether to seek the Republican nomination for president in 2012.
A source close to the three-term congresswoman said Bachmann will travel to Iowa this month for multiple meetings to seek advice from political forces there and party elders close to the caucus process before coming to a final decision regarding a potential presidential run. Bachmann, a native of Waterloo, Iowa, also is set to deliver a keynote speech at an Iowans for Tax Relief PAC fundraiser Jan. 21 in Des Moines, Iowa…Bachmann’s appearance in the Hawkeye State later this month will be her third trip over the past eight months to the significant early-caucus state, and last week she was featured at another GOP fundraiser in Michigan — also an early primary state.
Although aides in Bachmann’s congressional office said she has received frequent encouragement from supporters to challenge President Obama next year, they would not confirm quite yet that she officially was throwing her hat into the ring.
However, Bachmann’s senior staff did admit the Minnesotan is not ruling out a presidential campaign. “Nothing is off the table,” Bachmann chief of staff Andy Parrish told ABC News when asked whether the Iowa trip signaled Bachmann’s intent to run for president. “The congresswoman is excited about her first trip to Iowa this year.”
Thoughts?
_______________________________________________________
This piece was originally published on Rightosphere on 10/10/10. Given that Gov. Christie is the only Republican who leads Obama nationally at this point in time, and given my sympathies to the governor’s political orientation, I decided that a re-post is in order.
______________________________________________
I know, I know. He won’t run. He’s given Shermanesque statements. It’s too soon. He needs to be re-elected first. And so on. But still, his recent wins in two separate pollsof conservative activists as to their preferred presidential nominee in 2012 has to be giving New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie second thoughts about taking an especially large knee on 2012. In any case, here are some reasons that a Christie nod deserves at least a look.
First, he’s got a blue-state base: New Jersey. Now, it’s true that if Republicans win New Jersey, they won’t really need it, as it will be the icing on the electoral cake of a GOP blowout. But New Jersey’s electoral votes are the least of the benefits that Christie’s regionalism brings to the table. Indeed, it’s highly possible that New Jersey will take a pass on a Christie presidency as suburban women recoil at the thought of any Republican president appointing the replacement for Anthony Kennedy on SCOTUS, and as center-left, Garden State independents fear the impact of Christie’s budget slashing prowess as applied to federal entitlements. But even if that does turn out to be true, Christie would almost certainly win the neighboring state of Pennsylvania, where he should increase Republican numbers enough in the eastern part of the state to take the state outright. In close elections, Democrats usually squeak by in Pennsylvania. Bush lost it to Kerry by 2 points, and a less Dixie-fied GOP nominee probably would have won the Keystone State that year. Christie fits the bill, and without Pennsylvania, Obama’s electoral math becomes challenging at best.
Secondly, and relatedly, Christie’s Yankee status ensures that the GOP won’t be tarnished with the sins of Bush & DeLay, Inc., come 2012. The simple fact of the matter is that a lot of politics is tribal and superficial. The sorts of voters who don’t pay all that much attention to politics, and who often decide elections, are going to associate any southern nominee with the gang of brush-choppin’, g-droppin’ bumpkins that gave us the neverending Iraq war, pork-barrel politics, and on whose watch the economy collapsed. Is it fair that, say, Haley Barbour, who has by all accounts been a good governor, will be lumped in with Bush/DeLay/Frist just because of his accent? Of course not. But neither is life. Add to that the reality of putting a nominee who sounds like Foghorn Leghorn on stage across from the first African-American president and the necessity of a nominee from outside the South becomes even more apparent.
Third, not only is Christie a non-Southerner, he’s from the tri-state area of the Northeast, which is also the area that tends to produce Republicans who have the best chemistry with the media and who are best at sparring with and combating the MSM. This is one of the reasons I was a Rudy fan the last time around. Whenever I watched Rudy take questions from reporters or get all chummy with Sean Hannity and the rest of the Fox crew, it was apparent that he was simply more comfortable and more natural in these settings than were the other candidates in the race. Romney carried with him the aura of a Boston Brahmin, George Allen, who was a leading contender at the time, was just another slow-talking southerner who seemed more interested in being folksy and deliberate than in answering the questions at hand, and McCain seemed distant. And that’s not a Rudy-specific dynamic. Former New York Sen. Alfonse D’Amato always seemed to have great chemistry with the media as well from what I remember. As does Judge Andrew Napolitano, a former New Jersey Superior Court Judge and now a Fox News contributor. There’s just something about the combative, pugnacious culture of the tri-state area that gives its politicians the ability to rule the media the way that proper New Englanders, genteel Southerners, polite Midwesterners, and spacey Westerners simply cannot. Christie has already schooled the media a dozen times in his first year in office. He would be the first GOP president since Reagan who was a media natural.
Fourth, Christie would keep the base of the GOP organized around principles of small government and fiscal conservatism, and would avoid the temptation to snag the security blanket of the 2004 election, complete with its focus on foriegn policy and/or social issues. As readers know, I have a lot of issues with the Tea Party base. I often view them as too purist, and I think they’ve primaried out a lot of inoffensive Republican politicians and officeholders. That said, the 2010 iteration of the GOP — a big tent based in small government and economic growth, with Tea Partiers manning the phone banks — is winning voters who haven’t gone Republican since 1994, or since 1988, or perhaps ever. Traditionally isolationist Midwesterners and Northeasterners are casting ballots for the GOP, as are educated urban and suburban voters. The Reagan Democrats have come home, as have the Obama Republicans. Essentially, the broader middle class is voting for this version of the Republican Party, and there’s no reason to screw that up by nominating, say, John Bolton, who will re-organize the GOP around a Neo-Conservative foreign policy, or Alan Keyes, who would proceed to discuss how the nation is slouching towards Sodom and Gomorrah. Christie is pro-life and pro-traditional marriage and would probably stick a flagpole up the rump of Ahmadinejad if the two were in a room alone together, but the fact remains that the New Jersey governor is first and foremost a small government/fiscal issues/fix the economy kind of guy, which would keep the GOP with that orientation going forward.
Last, but certainly not least, Christie actually brings to the table the ideas and the policies that the country needs, as well as the skills and the fortitude with which to implement them. In an era of perpetual economic stagnation, ever-expanding debt, and where Southeast Asia is about to eclipse the Trans-Atlantic nations as the foremost economic powers of the world, that has to count for something.
It is for these reasons that I am open to a Christie 2012 run, even though the governor has not even finished his first term, and I am hoping that Gov. Christie is open to a run as well.
Update, January 2011: Yes, it’s a Zogby Interactive poll. But it’s still a somewhat scientific poll of likely primary and general election voters, and it shows what many of us have been saying for awhile: that it’s going to take a culturally blue Republican to best Obama in 2012. It’s no cooincidence that Romney runs second-best against the president. Or that only Romney puts Florida in play against Obama according to the latest PPP survey of the state. The reality is that suburban swing voters aren’t going to trust any Republican candidate that is too dissimilar to them. They trust Christie because he IS them.
Sarah Palin forwarded a message to hundreds of thousands of her followers from conservative talk show host, Tammy Bruce (left). The message, in the context of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” that Palin re-tweeted:
“But this hypocrisy is just truly too much. Enuf already–the more someone complains about the homos the more we should look under their bed,”
Is this a trial balloon, a big mistake, or something else? Palin’s sometimes uses unconventional or high-tech methods of making announcements: Facebook or Twitter. So far, the Facebook page is silent.
Bruce later followed up the Twitter posts with a hearty thanks:
“I think @SarahPalinUSA RT my tweet is her first comment on DADT, treatment of gays & attempts to marginalize us–thank you Governor,” …and… “I know Gov Palin & this “anti-gay” meme has been a lie–plain & simple. She’s a decent woman & friend to the community,”
Since this is my inaugural post at Race 4 2012, I think it makes sense to use it as an introduction to a subject I’ll be focusing on a lot during the 2012 cycle: foreign policy, and it’s impact on the race. I’ve been studying international relations at the graduate level for almost four years now, and my undergrad degree was in politics with an IR focus, so this is an area with which I’m familiar, and in which I’m interested.
It is not, however, likely to be an area which dominates the 2012 presidential elections. Indeed, the conventional wisdom is that the economy will be the major issue which shapes the 2012 presidential race. By and large, at this point, I agree with this conventional wisdom. Barring a dramatic improvement, the still sluggish economy–and who is best positioned to fix it–is likely to be the main thing on the minds of both primary and general election voters. On the other hand, it’s worth keeping in mind that the primary constitutional role of the President is as commander-in-chief, and that our President is not only head of government, but head of state as well.
This distinction between head of government and head of state is important, and both roles are key, from a foreign policy perspective. On the head of government side of things, it is important that perspective presidential candidates are asked questions about policy. How will would-be presidents conceive of our national interests? What policies will they pursue towards key regions, nations, and transnational actors? Will these candidates seek to preserve American hegemony, and if so, how? Finally, if we take for granted (and I think we can) that anyone who wants to be President of the United States has a robust view of American exceptionalism, how will broader trends in their thought not specifically related to foreign policy–such as Libertarianism, social conservatism and that wonderfully amorphous but potent force known as “tea party” sentiment–shape the ways in which they believe America should be exceptional?
Yet all of these questions deal only with the “head of government” portion of a President’s job. The other portion–that of head of state–is actually harder to pin down. To be a good head of state is not so much a matter of policy, as it is temperament, prudence, and other intangible virtues. A head of state is not just the face of the nation to the rest of the world–though this is a part of the job–but also an expression of the nation’s self-conception. A head of state must reassure not only the rest of the world, but also his/her own nation, of what this nation called “America” is really all about. And to do this, of course, he or she needs to have a pretty firm idea on the subject fixed in mind. A good head of state, finally, understands that the head of state is an ambassador of the nation, not the nation in and of himself. Thus, paradoxically, you have to be, at bottom, a highly ambitious, not to say arrogant so and so to become a head of government. After all, you’re arguing that you and you alone are better qualified than the 300,000,000 or so other people in the US to determine the nation’s policy. On the other hand, a good head of state requires the humility to understand that his or her person is, in the grand scheme of things, far less important than the nation he/she represents.
I point all of this out to illustrate not only that foreign policy is important–given America’s position in the world that should be obvious–but also how difficult it is. For most of the Presidential candidates, their foreign policy experience is limited, and we frankly don’t know that much about the policies they would implement as head of government. On head of state issues, we will probably end up taking a wild stab in the dark. So the trick will be reading whatever tea leaves we can find. What does the fact that X candidate has picked Y foreign policy advisor say about their foreign policy thinking? How might a candidate square a Libertarian philosophy with the complexities of US foreign policy, and the fact that such a president will likely be unable to enact the foreign policy vision of the Cato Institute, even if they win the general election? What does social conservatism say about a candidate’s foreign policy views, and equally importantly, what doesn’t it say? Finally, are there any clues in a candidate’s background which indicate how he or she will make critical command decisions, and act as head of state? These questions may seem somewhat secondary in an election cycle likely to be dominated by the economy. Then again, it was a not unreasonable supposition that the 2008 election would be dominated by foreign policy issues, such as the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan, until the financial crisis hit. In the same way, it’s equally possible that a crisis in 2011 or 2012 could put foreign policy at the center of the presidential campaign, and even if it doesn’t, any potential Republican presidential candidate ought to be examined with such crises in mind. John Mccain was, by his own admission, less prepared than he should have been to deal with complex economic issues, and we should be wary of presidential candidates who can’t cope with foreign policy challenges in their campaigns. After all, if they can’t deal with foreign policy issues while running for president, how likely is it that candidates will excell at conducting it if they win the office they seek?
